2009/3/12 Andriy Gapon :
> on 12/03/2009 03:26 Alexander Churanov said the following:
>> The issue is devel/boost and devel/boost138 will not coexist. Is it OK
>> in your opinion?
>
> I am not sure why... It is trivial to make different (non-default) boost
> versions to install their headers and li
2009/3/10 Andriy Gapon :
>
> I agree with the "better" approach, but why wait for months until all
> deadlines
> are passed if we can create boost 1.38 port right now and then shuffle ports
> around later. I think that happened quite a few times in the past.
The issue is devel/boost and devel/boo
on 06/03/2009 23:47 Alexander Churanov said the following:
> Hi guys!
> I am Alexander Churanov, currently maintaining devel/boost (for
> several weeks :-).
>
> Yes, leaving 1.34 would be awful and nobody is going to do that!
> For current status, current efforts and decisions see
> http://wiki.fr
Hi guys!
I am Alexander Churanov, currently maintaining devel/boost (for
several weeks :-).
Yes, leaving 1.34 would be awful and nobody is going to do that!
For current status, current efforts and decisions see
http://wiki.freebsd.org/BoostPortingProject.
My comments on the suggested solution:
Th
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> I've seen couple of conversations in this list about updating devel/boost to
> the
> recent version. As I understand people already have patches but the main
> issue is
> getting all ports depending on boost to work with the new version, an
I've seen couple of conversations in this list about updating devel/boost to the
recent version. As I understand people already have patches but the main issue
is
getting all ports depending on boost to work with the new version, and testing
this.
Now I am thinking - why not create a boost-deve
